Democracy

[politics student]

How do you feel about democracy?

Which forms of democracy do you prefer?

I personally am torn between the 1 party state or a multi party state with an electoral system designed to create minorities in parliament to form coalition governments. While tabloids exist I can not see this being a viable option.

I would also be happy with a 1 party state with an internal system of democracy. While consumerism and greed is pushed as good things in education and culture I can not see this working.

Its quite a mess, democracy is held up almost if its the holy grail to all solutions but issues take so long to be resolved under it using short term solutions rather than a long term basis to help the people.

I struggle to see how a reformist party would change the electoral system, Labour promised to and delivered when it came everywhere apart from central government, clearly they did not want to risk the lose of power.

So how do you guys feel about this?

[GPDP]

Democracy is a sham unless it is participatory.

[Chapter 24]

Democracy in its true form, which is open to all and participatory and is not representative but direct, is an ideal system to follow.

[politics student]

Democracy in its true form, which is open to all and participatory and is not representative but direct, is an ideal system to follow.

Hmmm direct democracy, well in a true form in a society of well educated people wanting to do the best for the collective good I would agree.

[Lynx]

I can't say I think much of democracy within the context of the present system. What we have in much of the wealthier nations is plutocracy.
Random selection by lot is one option. In addition, political parties and the accompanying adversarial system should be abolished.
Again, it is difficult to get enthusiastic about the current system - our goal is to change it.

[Saorsa]

We need socialist democracy. Democracy based on including the workers, peasants, and in sem-feudal and semi-colonial countries, the progressive petty bourgeoisie and the patriotic minority of the national bourgeoisie.

The enemies of the revolution will be excluded from democracy, in the same way the revolutionaries are excluded from the present system of bourgeois parliamentary democracy the moment they begin to be a half-way serious threat.

Workers Councils will be set up at a neighbourhood and workplace level, and decisions will be made by these bodies on the basis of direct participatory democracy. These Workers Councils will be in control of the state apparatus, which will be used to crush counter-revolution and defend the revolution from imperialism, while mobilising the masses towards building a rationally planned socialist economy.

Democracy is meaningless unless you ask the question - which class holds power, both political and economic? Under capitalism, it's the capitalist class, regardless of which bosses' party holds office.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

How do you feel about democracy?In any type of socialist structure, democracy is not an option; it is a requirement. Even anarchists are democratic in their way.

In politics, economics and government (or lack thereof) are always reliant on each other. You can mix and match somewhat, but when it comes down to it, if the economic structure is supposed to represent the "people", then the government must, too.


Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.


Which forms of democracy do you prefer?The most pure, direct democracy available.

With current technology I do not see why initiative, referendum, and recall cannot be implemented without an executive branch, leaving just a legislative and judicial.

Of these two branches, the representatives should be kept at a minimum, and terms should be kept short. The legislative branch should be limited to facilitators since it is the voters who are the legislative; when representatives preform these duties, then the democracy becomes a "representative democracy", which is nothing more then a republic.

The judicial branch likewise should be nothing more then facilitators, with juries making all decisions.

As far as political parties go, I feel they should not exist, or at least their power should be severely limited (the number of representatives from any one party should be capped at no more then 10% of the total in government, for example). Parties create psudo-aristocracies, and like the electoral college they can block actual majorities (and therefore popular opinion.) Political parties encourage conformity and discourage thinking.


"In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum."

In order to combat "tyranny by majority", and protect minority rights, issues should require a 66%-75% majority to pass, and filibusters can be deployed; additionally, limiting the power of political parties would allow representatives who otherwise wouldn't have a chance to win office.

Finally, democracies (and the people it represents) should be kept small. This reduces waste and bureaucracy, and allows the democracy to tailor itself to the needs and will of the people it represents as much as possible.

[cyu]

In order to combat "tyranny by majority", and protect minority rights, issues should require a 66%-75% majority to pass, and filibusters can be deployed

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder. . .
Yes, I think we all realize that under any system, there will be a minority that "suffers" (including anarchy.)

The challenge isn't to make sure nobody "suffers"; that is an unrealistic goal; there will always be a minority that does not agree with the majority.

The challenge is make sure as few people as possible "suffer" while keeping the government running (so a 100% majority required to pass referendums is impractical for more then about two people.)

You also seem to miss the point of democracy; it is not a matter of how many people get to make decisions; everybody gets to vote for what they decide; it is a matter of which decision is implemented since all choices cannot be practiced.

There are 3 pillars of democracy that I have already mentioned, each of which every person should have an equal chance to participate in:

Initiative. This is where ideas are presented. In the current systems it is rather ineffective (petitions, writing representatives, etc.), and lobbyists get the most attention.

However, in a true democratic system, each and every person would have an equal chance to introduce an initiative (through a public forum; in today's world likely an internet forum set up for governmental purposes.)

This is the stage of democracy that political parties get in the way of most; parties and lobbyists greatly affect what issues are brought up for referendum; if an issue is never even brought up for vote, it will never pass.

Referendum. This is what people think about when they hear "democracy", but is only one part. This is where the ideas presented in the initiative are accepted or rejected.

Currently most referendums are voted upon by elected representatives in a republican type system.

In a true democracy, those representatives would be no more then facilitators; every person would vote, and the representatives wouldn't be the ones who chose which initiatives are voted upon (that could be chosen by people "seconding" the initiatives in the forums; the issues with the most "seconds make it to the referendum).

The representatives would instead be responsible for making sure the public knows where, when, and how elections are carried out, for counting the ballots, etc.

Recall. This is simply just the ability to remove representatives and passed legislature from the system, for whatever reason it is required. This is preformed just like the initiative and referendum, but removes representatives/ legislation rather then adds it.

[cyu]

all choices cannot be practiced.


Why not? Let's say you had an "election" and the choices were:

1. Eat a jelly sandwich for lunch
2. Eat a ham sandwich for lunch
3. Eat a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch

Let's say choice 1 wins the vote, with 65%. If it were a "straight-up" democracy, then everyone would be eating jelly sandwiches for lunch, but that's just silly to an anarchist. In an anarchist society, 65% of the people would be eating jelly sandwiches and the rest would be eating whatever the heck they "voted" for. Decentralized democracy, baby, it's the way of the future :D

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Why not? Let's say you had an "election" and the choices were:

1. Eat a jelly sandwich for lunch
2. Eat a ham sandwich for lunch
3. Eat a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch

Let's say choice 1 wins the vote, with 65%. If it were a "straight-up" democracy, then everyone would be eating jelly sandwiches for lunch, but that's just silly to an anarchist. In an anarchist society, 65% of the people would be eating jelly sandwiches and the rest would be eating whatever the heck they "voted" for. Decentralized democracy, baby, it's the way of the future :D
I doubt that I will have to vote for that; however, I have had to vote:

1. Allow stem-cell research
2. Don't allow stem-cell research

Or this one:

1. Allot so much funds to education
2. Allot that same money to health-care
3. Allot part of it to each.

You cannot chose both options in the first example because they are mutually exclusive.

You cannot chose all three options for the second option because you cannot spend more then you have (unfortunately most politicians failed that portion of economics. . .)

There are times when more then one option up for election can both be practiced, but come on, I'm talking about real life (not your imaginary "sandwich referendum".)

[Decolonize The Left]

I doubt that I will have to vote for that; however, I have had to vote:

1. Allow stem-cell research
2. Don't allow stem-cell research

Or this one:

1. Allot so much funds to education
2. Allot that same money to health-care
3. Allot part of it to each.

You cannot chose both options in the first example because they are mutually exclusive.

You cannot chose all three options for the second option because you cannot spend more then you have (unfortunately most politicians failed that portion of economics. . .)

There are times when more then one option up for election can both be practiced, but come on, I'm talking about real life (not your imaginary "sandwich referendum".)

I completely understand your argument.

I offer the following possible solution. In a decentralized society, it would make no sense to have one decision be applied to many different communities. Hence the first situation you offered (stem-cells) would be voted on in each commiunity, yay or nay.

Now, you may rightly claim that the problem of absolute decisions still applies to each community. You are correct. But, within the nature of de-centralizing a society, the communities would be smaller and therefore discussion would be easier - solutions more reasonable and democratic. Hence the absolute nature of such a decision would be far more justified as it would entail a full exploration of details on behalf of the community.

- August

[Samuel]

Democracy in its true form, which is open to all and participatory and is not representative but direct, is an ideal system to follow.

pure representative democracy (assuming the Athenian model) creates a situation of the tyranny of the many; anyone not in the majority is oppressed; there needs to be a system of protection of minority rights, which rules out direct democracy.

[Bilan]

pure representative democracy (assuming the Athenian model) creates a situation of the tyranny of the many; anyone not in the majority is oppressed; there needs to be a system of protection of minority rights, which rules out direct democracy.

That's plainly not true.

[freakazoid]

pure representative democracy (assuming the Athenian model) creates a situation of the tyranny of the many; anyone not in the majority is oppressed; there needs to be a system of protection of minority rights, which rules out direct democracy.

I have brought this problem up here, http://www.revleft.com/vb/popular-tyrant-t85443/index.html Here is what I said;


"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner."

Sometimes when I am debating with my friend, a libertarian, he says why a republic is better than a democracy is because it would lead to a popular tyrant.
What are your thoughts on this? How do we keep this from happening? What I think would be best is something like the Bill of Rights. A recognition of certain rights that everybody has and can not be broken even if there was a 99.9% vote for it.

You thought? http://www.revleft.com/vb/popular-tyrant-t85443/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

[Acorn]

Democracy is inheirently flawed, as it gives people who either don't know what they're talking about, or are complete idiots, the ability to drastically alter life for everyone.
Having an educated populace works well with Democracy.
But in our present state?

[politics student]

Democracy is inheirently flawed, as it gives people who either don't know what they're talking about, or are complete idiots, the ability to drastically alter life for everyone.
Having an educated populace works well with Democracy.
But in our present state?

I agree thats why I would prefer a one party state within the party a form of internal democracy to select experts and leadership.

I thought the stem cell debate was a good example. So many people failed to understand what it was and were believer religious or pro life propaganda.

We would also have to remove tabloids or any form of owned mass media to stop misinformation (www.thesun.co.uk) :thumbdown:

[Post-Something]

Democracy is inheirently flawed, as it gives people who either don't know what they're talking about, or are complete idiots, the ability to drastically alter life for everyone.
Having an educated populace works well with Democracy.
But in our present state?

No, democracy is not inherently flawed, capitalism is. This problem wouldn't be anywhere near as big if we lived in a socialist system.

[al8]

As far as political parties go, I feel they should not exist, or at least their power should be severely limited (the number of representatives from any one party should be capped at no more then 10% of the total in government, for example). Parties create psudo-aristocracies, and like the electoral college they can block actual majorities (and therefore popular opinion.) Political parties encourage conformity and discourage thinking.


A wonderful solution to this is the oft neglected democratic method of sortition. Demarchy is the name given to a democratic system that proposes sortition be used extensively to chose to fill the periodicly rotating seats of members in council. It would brake the actual power of party blocks since noone could know for certain who would be alloted a seat in this or that council. Therefore the only option is to advocate this or that position genarally in the populace to get better chances and/or also form advisary groups. The will of the people would be statistacally represented in council, just as, and by almost the same method the peoples will is represented in randomized national opinion polls.

[Decolonize The Left]

Democracy is inheirently flawed, as it gives people who either don't know what they're talking about, or are complete idiots, the ability to drastically alter life for everyone.
Having an educated populace works well with Democracy.
But in our present state?

Democracy is a government 'for, of, and by, the people.' Democracy can only function in a culture of discussion and debate, as topics will inevitably effect more than one individual. For this reason a decentralized society is absolutely vital for the flourishing of democracy.


"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner."

Sometimes when I am debating with my friend, a libertarian, he says why a republic is better than a democracy is because it would lead to a popular tyrant.
What are your thoughts on this? How do we keep this from happening? What I think would be best is something like the Bill of Rights. A recognition of certain rights that everybody has and can not be broken even if there was a 99.9% vote for it.

You thought?

You are referring here to 'liberties.' That is, freedoms granted by the government to individual citizens for the purposes of either a) protecting them from harm (negative liberties: freedom from...), or b) ensuring certain capabilities (positive liberties: freedom to...).

Liberties are completely useless and unnecessary should the society be decentralized and based around the two social conditions of human existence: freedom and equality. These conditions are not up for debate, apply to all individuals, do not require an authority to bestow them, and function in place of all liberties. If you would like a more in-depth description of why these are conditions of existence, I am happy to explain.


A wonderful solution to this is the oft neglected democratic method of sortition. Demarchy is the name given to a democratic system that proposes sortition be used extensively to chose to fill the periodicly rotating seats of members in council. It would brake the actual power of party blocks since noone could know for certain who would be alloted a seat in this or that council. Therefore the only option is to advocate this or that position genarally in the populace to get better chances and/or also form advisary groups. The will of the people would be statistacally represented in council, just as, and by almost the same method the peoples will is represented in randomized national opinion polls.

Sortition is a wonderful method of election when dealing with councils - but democracy is a government 'for, of, and by, the people.' It cannot, by definition, be representative.

- August

[Die Neue Zeit]

Democracy is a sham unless it is participatory.

And I would also suggest adding in a bit of demarchy, as well. :)

[KrazyRabidSheep]

A wonderful solution to this is the oft neglected democratic method of sortition. Demarchy is the name given to a democratic system that proposes sortition be used extensively to chose to fill the periodicly rotating seats of members in council. It would brake the actual power of party blocks since noone could know for certain who would be alloted a seat in this or that council. Therefore the only option is to advocate this or that position genarally in the populace to get better chances and/or also form advisary groups. The will of the people would be statistacally represented in council, just as, and by almost the same method the peoples will is represented in randomized national opinion polls.
I do believe that demarchy is a wonderful idea, but I question it's application on a larger scale. It would also have to regulated differently then it is currently in the U.S. judicial system.

Whenever I have been called for jury duty, I get to sit in a large room and read a novel. Then about once an hour, some people come in, ask us to fill out forms and ask us questions.

Since I am against capital punishment in any case, I am never picked for a murder case. Since I have knowledge in medical science, I am never picked for a case where there is a medical grievance. In actuality, I have never served on a jury; not because I am biased or ignorant, but for the opposite reasons.

In it's current application that I have observed, demarchy encourages political apathy and intellectual ignorance.

However, if these mistakes could be avoided, and the scale it was practiced in was relatively small, I would be all for demarchy.

[Winter]

A true democracy can only come about in a Communist system. Even during Socialism democracy would be impossible. With Socialism, a one party state is needed and reactionaries censored. It's a long, hard road, but democracy will be the pinnacle of human society.

[politics student]

A true democracy can only come about in a Communist system. Even during Socialism democracy would be impossible. With Socialism, a one party state is needed and reactionaries censored. It's a long, hard road, but democracy will be the pinnacle of human society.

I agree only by breaking up mass media and educating the proletarian keeping them from being influenced by reactionary groups appealing to their greed.

We also have to remember democracy is a very slow system which is why reformists can never work while they can create things like the NHS all it takes is a party promising to cut taxes and public spending to bring it to its knees within the next decade we will have a long fight on our hands to protect the NHS lets just hope we get the turn out which we got with the poll tax.

[al8]

Demarchy is very amenable to different cercumstances and requrements, and could be practiced large scale and small. Knowledge and experience can be taken to account when tailoring pool size fx.

[al8]

Let's say that there has come time to vote in new council members of The Revolutionary Transit Workers Council. And that the chapters are nation wide. There can be requrements that the pool of people be restricted to those who have are active and have unionwork experience. Or it could be strictly members of union period. The council would be a rotational 12 member body. Always someone going in and somone going out, could be on a yearly basis or a 3 month basis. All depending on normal duration of duty. Then there could also be resortition on the basis of voluntary resignment. There are endless features that could be tailored to cercumstance. But rotational system would pass expirence and inform members of the working of things.

The reason I like this so much is that it encourages ordinary people to political involvement, and pressures factions into advocating and creates incentive for having and educated populace. For having real shits in the populace would create unease, what if he acidentally got sortioned and installed? If there is enough of them it may become statistically likely to cause problems.

Damarchy method also allows for seting upp sortition procedures that churn out eaqual gender compositons among other things. All these things can be ajusted. And people do not need to be cute, have charisma, oratory skills or funds or suportive factions to be elected. Everything of that sort is bypassed.

[freakazoid]

What is demarchy and sortition?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

What is demarchy and sortition?
You have internet access; you can do your own research. :rolleyes:

Here are some useful sites to start at (wikipedia is best used if you use the external links rather then just reading the articles):

Demarchy:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=demarchy&btnG=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy
http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=328872

Sortition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sortition
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sortition&btnG=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=328876 (http:http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=328876//)


If, however, you have a specific question about demarchy or sortition that you cannot find an answer to, feel free to ask us.

[Niccolò Rossi]

With Socialism, a one party state is needed

Why? So much for the self-emancipation of the working class :rolleyes:


I agree only by breaking up mass media and educating the proletarian keeping them from being influenced by reactionary groups appealing to their greed.

Again, so the workers have to be lead to socialism, being too uncultured, uneducated and ignorant to emancipate themselves. Please.

[Winter]

Why? So much for the self-emancipation of the working class :rolleyes:

The one party would be fighting for the working class while keeping reactionaries from rising. I am only arguing the position of Lenin amongst many other great Marxists. If you don't understand this then I am going to assume you are an anarchist.




Again, so the workers have to be lead to socialism, being too uncultured, uneducated and ignorant to emancipate themselves. Please.

Yes. Do you see any spontaneous worker revolutions occuring around you? People do not notice class consciousness due to biased education and media.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The one party would be fighting for the working class while keeping reactionaries from rising.

The workers can not do this without "the party"?


I am only arguing the position of Lenin amongst many other great Marxists.

Yes, and? Is this some kind of appeal to authority?


If you don't understand this then I am going to assume you are an anarchist.

If you don't understand that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the class itself and not that of "the party" I am going to assume you are not a Marxist.

In case you didn't notice, I'm not an anarchist.


Yes. Do you see any spontaneous worker revolutions occuring around you?

Please refrain from the word "spontaneous". It's vague to say the least.

Do you see any worker revolutions lead by a vanguard party seizing power?


People do not notice class consciousness due to biased education and media.

The bourgeoisie exercise a cultural hegemony over the working class. Ruling Class ideology blinds the proletariat from realising it's object class interests. However, this does not necessitate the taking power by a clique of intellectuals in order to bring socialism down to the masses and shelter than from reactionary ideology.

[Comrade B]

Regions should elect representatives. Representatives elect a head. The people are all delivered forms that they may fill out if they wish for the impeachment and replacement of their leader every few years.

There should be no party system.

[cyu]

There are times when more then one option up for election can both be practiced, but come on, I'm talking about real life (not your imaginary "sandwich referendum".)


How about this then?
1. Allow "official" recognition to marriages only between a man and a woman.
2. Also "officially" recognize same-sex marriages.
3. Also "officially" recognize polygamist marriages.

When you have an election based on these issues, who do you apply the result to? Should it be a world-wide election, and everyone has to live with the results?

To anarchists, each community would have their election, and the "official" recognition would come from the community. It wouldn't matter to them what other areas have voted for.



1. Allot so much funds to education
2. Allot that same money to health-care
3. Allot part of it to each.


Anarchists would probably support allowing each "voter" to decide what percentage of his "taxes" go where - so if you had to pay $1000 in taxes, you could choose $300 of it for education and $700 for health care. If there aren't taxes in your society, then you could still divide up the funds available by the number of people, and then have each person determine what percentage to allocate where.

However, regardless of how much money is allocated to health care or farming or whatever, anarchists would protect the right of a dying person's access to health care or food, based on the principle that those most affected by a decision should be the ones making it. Granting or denying health care or food to a dying person affects the victim more than anyone else, so anarchists would use their power to ensure this person has more say in that decision than anyone else.

[Winter]

You asked for it Zeitgeist! Now I will unleash my supreme powers on you!!! :p jk, I totally forgot about this thread, heheh. :blushing:


The workers can not do this without "the party"?

From my studies, it seems a central organization is necessary. Look at labor unions in the U.S. and how easilly they get corrupted by reactionary politics that fail/or choose not to see the real problems. The Bolshevik party as well as the Communist Party of China are the few successes when it came to organizing the working class and peasants leading them into the early stages of Socialism. I say this is a realistic method and should be used whenever we get the opportunity. The party is not going to overlord them, but create a strategic method and mass educate the masses by un-indoctrinating ( i'm sure there's an actual word for this )them from all the BS they have been taught.


Yes, and? Is this some kind of appeal to authority?

No, just an appeal to history.




If you don't understand that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the class itself and not that of "the party" I am going to assume you are not a Marxist.

In case you didn't notice, I'm not an anarchist.

The class will emanicipate itself, but they need strategic direction. Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you like that :( I think alot of people just take for granted the works of Lenin and assume all Marxists follow his teachings, but evidently this is not true.




Please refrain from the word "spontaneous". It's vague to say the least.

I'm sure there is many workers forming coalitions but when you have all kinds of different groups doing their own thing there is no organization between the class as a whole, just small groups. The vanguard party would encompass the whole class.


Do you see any worker revolutions lead by a vanguard party seizing power?

No, not right now at least, because people are too sectarian. But history shows it is possible. I'm willing to push aside some of my differences once a legitimate party/organization comes around. I want this as bad as you.





The bourgeoisie exercise a cultural hegemony over the working class. Ruling Class ideology blinds the proletariat from realising it's object class interests.

I completely agree.


However, this does not necessitate the taking power by a clique of intellectuals in order to bring socialism down to the masses and shelter than from reactionary ideology.

Not just intellectuals but full time revolutionaries are needed. I really do not see workers educating themselves on the way propaganda really works. In fact, it seems it is getting worse. What do you suggest?

[Sendo]

Hmmm direct democracy, well in a true form in a society of well educated people wanting to do the best for the collective good I would agree.

Advocacy for parliamentary politics in OP, calls for democratic participation by the educated (and therefore more rational and moral) reeks of liberal elitism. I'd advise reading some Chomsky's interviews on participatory democracy and his essays on liberal elitism.

That aside, I think it would be ideal to localize politics a great deal to make it more participatory and then have a national (ideally global) committee directly elected, but in a society formed by socialist principles we could get away with referendums and avoid the guidance of elitists. In the future we won't have to deal with declaring war or foreign policy or currency policy or any of that jazz. Any sort of venture like say, mining, could be coordinated between workers' councils and between communities.

We don't need some entrenched bureaucracy or single-party states. Liberate everyone as quickly as possible (like pulling off a bandage). Confiscate all property and give it to the workers, take pressure off small communities and merely let them create their local "governments". That's what happened in Iraq before Bremer stamped it out: communities spontaneously formed local governments. We don't need ivory-tower Russian zombies, at least not anymore.